Second Shot Golf Courses

[Doug Siebert]

OK, so can anyone define the difference between a second shot course and a course where driving doesn't much matter?  Because of a lot of what I'm reading here seems to indicate that people here believe pretty much any course with wide fairways and smaller/slopey/guarded greens would qualify as a second shot course.  Tom Doak is the only one who seems to have picked up on that.

If you have a course with wide fairways, and it doesn't matter a whole lot which side of the fairway you approach from, but the greens are small and sloped, it would seem to be a course where second shots are more important.  But that's only because the tee shot is NOT important.  That's not a second shot course, it is a course with a weak test of driving.

I think a lot of this is in the mindset.  We're used to thinking the tee shot is the most important determinant of success on the hole simply because a mistake there can far more easily put one in a situation where we CANNOT recover than can a mistake on the approach.  If you mess up your tee shot into a bad enough spot, you MUST lay up, therefore you are giving up a stroke.  It doesn't matter how many chances you give me, I won't hit the green from 200 yards away with my ball down in 6" rough.  Even if I tried to do so (in those situations where a missed attempt is essentially as good as a layup) it is not a failure of execution on that second shot, therefore it is the fault of the shot before it that put me in that place.  When you miss a green, there is almost always a chance at getting it up and down.  A slight chance from some positions, perhaps, but a chance nonetheless - it depends on the level of risk you want to accept.  We can CHOOSE to play safe rather than trying the perfect up and down, but that's a choice, not something forced on us.  We know we are CAPABLE of getting it up and down, given sufficient tries.  Thus failure to do so is simply a failure of execution.  We internalize that failure to be the fault of our lack of short game skills, with the shot that put us there bearing only part of the blame.

This is why we think of a "second shot course" as being an exception, because our thought processes default to thinking of all courses as "tee shot courses".  It is only on those courses where the tee shots are notably easy, or the green complexes unusually severe, that we might think of a course as a second shot course.

[Tom_Doak]

That's not a second shot course, it is a course with a weak test of driving.

Doug:

I dislike the phrase "test of driving" almost as much as I dislike "second shot course".  Too many people visualize this as a course with a lot of tee shot hazards, or a lot of rough or trees.

Good driving is its own reward ... the longer and more accurately you hit the ball, the easier your approach will be, on almost any course. 

A great course rewards good driving further, by placing hazards close to the ideal lines of approach to make the player choose his line carefully based on his ability. 

[Sean Leary]

LACC comes to mind. On many holes it is extremely wide, but the nature of the greens are such that it is difficult to feel comfortable on the approach shots.

[Greg Taylor]

Is ANGC a second shot course? Wide off the tee, for the most part, sparsely bunkered, but TONS of greenside interest.

During the telecast last year, in his interview after one round during the Masters, Lee Westwood says that "Augusta is a second shot golf course."

He doesn't elaborate, but I'm sure he would agree with same reasons as quoted above...

[Tommy Williamsen]

There are some courses that do seem to put the premium on the second shot.  Pine Valley and Musgrove Mill are those kind of courses.  Yet the drive is important to have the best shot into the green.  But the landing areas off the tee are generous but the second shots rare very demanding.

[Ross Tuddenham]

What would be an example of a green where as long as you can get a decent amount of club on the ball you don't mind where you approach it from?

It is hard to think of interesting greens where; your stance, angle of attack, whether slopes of the green work with/against you, your shop shape preference, your position relative to greenside hazards, availability of ground game etc do not come into how you would like to play the hole. As soon as you work backwards from the green and any of the features above come into your mind then the positioning of your drive is important.  I understand that we are saying the second shot is the emphasis of the hole and not that the drive means nothing but I find it hard to separate the two if the green presents numerous unequal options.

If this is the case, it seems like  ANGC, seminole, st andrews beach and pinehurst are more than second shot courses.  I just feel there must be a strong correlation between interest/challenge of the greensite and the importance of the drive.

Even if angles of attack are limited (small greens maybe?), you would surely like to hit in with a short iron rather than a long iron?

[Adam Clayman]

What would be an example of a green where as long as you can get a decent amount of club on the ball you don't mind where you approach it from?

That's known as anti-strategy, or, a Weiskopf course. 

Oops, that wasn't very nice. I'm channelling the old days now that the mad Armenian is back.

[Jim Sherma]

It is fairly easy to go an entire round without missing a fairway

speak for yourself.  I hit 3 out of 14 on my one round at Hershey East.  ;-)

Ouch. Could not have been a fun day unless your short game was clicking on all cylinders. I personally love the East, it's one course I feel like I learn something on every play, but I understand why most don't like it.

[Sean_A]

It is very difficult not to have a favoured side of approach.  I would think not having a favoured side has to be purposeful design.  Of course, and I know you lot say US courses are getting firmer, but when greens are as soft as I have experienced in the US, a favoured side of approach is largely a myth especially with the new found love for large greens.

Ciao 

[Scott Warren]

I always took "second shot golf course" to mean a course where the drive is all a matter of setting up the second shot because position was so crucial.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think most people refer to "second shot" and "driving" courses based upon the margins of error associated with each.

Wide fairways tend to have significant margins of error despite the fact that a particular location in the fairway provides a better angle of attack into the green.

What most people don't consider is ball flight.

A golfer who slices/fades the ball will often have another "ideal fairway location" than a golfer who hooks/draws the ball.

Ie, on # 17 at PV, with a far left hole location, a golfer who has a slice/fade is disadvantaged if they're in the far left side of the fairway because of the trees flanking the left side of the fairway and green, whereas, a hooker/drawer isn't disadvantage.

Even from the middle of a fairway, with hole locations set to the perimeter/flanks of a green,, nearby trees and the golfers ball flight might make the middle of the fairway less than ideal.

[Jason Topp]

While Patrick's definition is the definition many people intend, I define a second shot course as one that does not provide sufficient interest off the tee. 

A course with wide fairways that provides interesting advantages or disadvantageous for taking risks is not a second shot course in my view.  A course where the location of the tee shot does not make much difference is a second shot course.

[Doug Siebert]

What would be an example of a green where as long as you can get a decent amount of club on the ball you don't mind where you approach it from?

It is hard to think of interesting greens where; your stance, angle of attack, whether slopes of the green work with/against you, your shop shape preference, your position relative to greenside hazards, availability of ground game etc do not come into how you would like to play the hole. As soon as you work backwards from the green and any of the features above come into your mind then the positioning of your drive is important.  I understand that we are saying the second shot is the emphasis of the hole and not that the drive means nothing but I find it hard to separate the two if the green presents numerous unequal options.

If this is the case, it seems like  ANGC, seminole, st andrews beach and pinehurst are more than second shot courses.  I just feel there must be a strong correlation between interest/challenge of the greensite and the importance of the drive.

Even if angles of attack are limited (small greens maybe?), you would surely like to hit in with a short iron rather than a long iron?

Give me a choice between hitting a short iron and a long iron into a green and I'll tell you that as long as you're giving a choice, I'd prefer to be putting it from the fringe.  Length is its own reward, that goes without saying.  I think there's an inherent assumption that courses that require more out of a player off the tee are requiring more accuracy off the tee in placing the ball where you maximize the chance of success for your approach, rather than simply hitting the ball further to leave a shorter club.  The former is a skill which has a lot of variation from day to day and shot to shot, the latter is just athletic ability with little day to day variation (excepting days where you just mishit everything, I suppose)  If one of us tells the other we had a "good driving day" we mean we're hitting it more accurately, not suddenly hitting it 30 yards further than normal.

Back to your first question, it is obvious that there are some holes with a nice even fairway where no matter where I put my drive, if you ask me whether I can improve on it, so long as I'm allowed to move the ball closer to the hole I can always improve on it.  I can improve it a yard at a time until you let me place it in the hole.  Length is its own reward.  But assuming you more reasonably restrict me to moving the ball no closer to the hole, there are some holes where it would make a real difference to my results, but also some holes where the difference would be impossible to measure no matter how many shots you had me hit from each location.  I think this is self evident.  You may be able to construct an argument for why a golfer should want to move the ball a few yards to the left or to the right from where he lays that makes sense in theory, but if it doesn't make any difference for him in practice, does it really matter?  I think it does not.

I believe that there would be a lot of holes where some golfers feel the angle matters to them, and some golfers don't, simply due to the diversity in shot shape, trajectory, spin and intangibles like "fitting one's eye".  Some like to fade it in, others prefer to run it in, some prefer to work it off the slopes, some prefer to stick it where they want it, etc.  I think the set of holes where angle matters is going to be different for different golfers for this reason, and also the percentage of holes where the angle matters.  For a hacker and for Rory, there probably aren't many holes where the angle matters, due to the complete lack of skill for one and the complete supremacy of skills for the other.  For guys who look at golf courses as a series of approach angles and like to work the ball on every shot, there may be very few holes where the angle does not matter.

You may be viewing it from the latter perspective.  I'm probably stepping into a real minefield saying this on GCA, but I think people here enjoy architecture so much that they far too often overrate the importance of angle of approach.  Yes, it does matter, a lot, on many great holes.  But I see this discussion even on holes where I think it only matters inside someone's head (not to discount that, most golf is played there so if you think it matters to you then it does matter to you)  I can't help wondering however, were it possible to conduct a blind test, what percentage of holes where people think angles matter to them that they really don't if the mental effect could be controlled for...

[Ross Tuddenham]

Hi doug, thanks for the response.


The point I was trying to get at is that if the green complex is interesting in any way then there will be somewhere you would rather hit your approach from.  Whether it is the example you give where you feel one angle is better or there is a side of the driving area that provides a better stance.  Any of which could just be your preference but when the green appears to present a challenge you are going to want to feel as comfortable as possible over the ball.  So this is where I don't get the concept of a second shot course because as soon as you are faced with and interesting/challenging approach - because of the greensite - you are going to want to play from a spot that best suits how you want to approach that green.  And it is your drive that got you there.  So even without the obvious strategies like angle of approach you still need to consider what your stance will be, visibility of the green and the shape of shot you want to play etc.

Even if the fairway is 100 yards wide and as flat as a football field you would surely rather you did not have to approach the green over a bunker.

[Josh Tarble]

 I almost look at the descriptor "Second Shot Course" as a slight.  All truly great course challenge the players in all facets.     

[Phil McDade]

I almost look at the descriptor "Second Shot Course" as a slight.  All truly great course challenge the players in all facets.     

"All truly great course challenge..."

Well, that's the rub right there, isn't it. Josh -- how do you define "challenge," particularly when it comes to hitting off the tee?

[Tom_Doak]

I think people here enjoy architecture so much that they far too often overrate the importance of angle of approach.  Yes, it does matter, a lot, on many great holes.  But I see this discussion even on holes where I think it only matters inside someone's head (not to discount that, most golf is played there so if you think it matters to you then it does matter to you)

Doug:

I agreed with almost everything you said, but especially that last bit, which seems to make most of the rest of it irrelevant.

No, it doesn't really matter if you're hitting over a bunker to the green when you've got a nine-iron in your hands and enough room to stop it below the hole ... unless you think it matters, which most golfers do.  Perhaps you are immune to that.

Of course, the angle DOES matter if there's a lot of slope in the green and you're afraid what will happen when the ball lands.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike B and others have referenced Pinehurst in this regard, but Tom D's last post reminded me of something I've often wondered, i.e. what happens to the importance of angles of approach when green slopes on Pinehurst's crowned/reverse bowl shaped greens don't  seem to suggest any one particular angle of approach as better than any other? I understand that pin placements/hole locations will suggest preferred lines, and yet it seems - not having played #2 -- that its crowned green work differently in this regard that the contoured greens on most of the other courses named in this thread. 

Peter

[Josh Tarble]

I almost look at the descriptor "Second Shot Course" as a slight.  All truly great course challenge the players in all facets.     

"All truly great course challenge..."

Well, that's the rub right there, isn't it. Josh -- how do you define "challenge," particularly when it comes to hitting off the tee?

Of course this will vary depending on upon individual opinion, but I define a challenging driving course one that penalizes the player for either hitting a poor shot or hitting an aggressive shot on a poor line.  Now that penalty doesn't always have to be a full shot, but it's noticeably worse than where a good shot ends.

[Jim Sherma]

Mike B and others have referenced Pinehurst in this regard, but Tom D's last post reminded me of something I've often wondered, i.e. what happens to the importance of angles of approach when green slopes on Pinehurst's crowned/reverse bowl shaped greens don't  seem to suggest any one particular angle of approach as better than any other? I understand that pin placements/hole locations will suggest preferred lines, and yet it seems - not having played #2 -- that its crowned green work differently in this regard that the contoured greens on most of the other courses named in this thread. 

Peter

Peter - on a general level I think preferred angles are almost always a function of green fimness. Firmer greens will allow very subtle features to dictate preference. Softer greens require much more significant features to dictate preference. Dartboard greens will almost never have a dictated preference regardless of features.

[Alex Miller]

Mike B and others have referenced Pinehurst in this regard, but Tom D's last post reminded me of something I've often wondered, i.e. what happens to the importance of angles of approach when green slopes on Pinehurst's crowned/reverse bowl shaped greens don't  seem to suggest any one particular angle of approach as better than any other? I understand that pin placements/hole locations will suggest preferred lines, and yet it seems - not having played #2 -- that its crowned green work differently in this regard that the contoured greens on most of the other courses named in this thread. 

Peter

Only one play on #2 under my belt, but the idea that the greens there are simply reverse saucers with nothing else going on does not do justice to the contours on the greens. I think the majority have other slopes, mounds, etc... that call for different angles of attack. 5 is the most obvious example, but flariing out a drive too far right will make it even more difficult to hold the approach on that green. I agree with Jim that firmness plays a larger role, especially on more subtle greens.

[Brad Isaacs]

I think people here enjoy architecture so much that they far too often overrate the importance of angle of approach.  Yes, it does matter, a lot, on many great holes.  But I see this discussion even on holes where I think it only matters inside someone's head (not to discount that, most golf is played there so if you think it matters to you then it does matter to you)

Doug:

I agreed with almost everything you said, but especially that last bit, which seems to make most of the rest of it irrelevant.

No, it doesn't really matter if you're hitting over a bunker to the green when you've got a nine-iron in your hands and enough room to stop it below the hole ... unless you think it matters, which most golfers do.  Perhaps you are immune to that.

Of course, the angle DOES matter if there's a lot of slope in the green and you're afraid what will happen when the ball lands.

Would you then consider Augusta National and Pine Valley to fit that description. Playable as in ability to hit a fairway, but tremendously important as to that placement in order to get the ball close to the hole?

Brad

[Garland Bayley]

Second shot golf courses are courses design by Jack that have room off the tee, and have green pin positions that only accept a high fade.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think people here enjoy architecture so much that they far too often overrate the importance of angle of approach.  Yes, it does matter, a lot, on many great holes.  But I see this discussion even on holes where I think it only matters inside someone's head (not to discount that, most golf is played there so if you think it matters to you then it does matter to you)

Doug:

I agreed with almost everything you said, but especially that last bit, which seems to make most of the rest of it irrelevant.

No, it doesn't really matter if you're hitting over a bunker to the green when you've got a nine-iron in your hands and enough room to stop it below the hole ... unless you think it matters, which most golfers do.  Perhaps you are immune to that.

Of course, the angle DOES matter if there's a lot of slope in the green and you're afraid what will happen when the ball lands.

Tom,

Holes like # 6, 12 and 13 at Pine Valley, # 2, 9 and 11 at ANGC would be holes where the angle of attack into the green is a significant factor,
And on some of those holes you're hitting Sand or Lob wedges into the greens, but those greens are configured and oriented to present more of a challenge if you don't approach from the ideal angle.

Let's take # 12 at Pine Valley, hole cut back left.
With a lob wedge in your hands, if you're in the short left side of the fairway because you took an iron or a fairway wood off the tee, it's an incredibly frightening approach shot, requiring precision in terms of distance control and ball flight/trajectory, but a driver down the right side leaves you a straight forward approach into the green without any mandate for any aerial flight.  You can hit anything from Lob Wedge to putter.
From the left, practically, ONLY a Lob wedge can be employed.

Hence I find your minimizing the significance of angles of attack .......interesting

Is it because the modern day architect is reluctant to craft situations similar to those at # 12, fearing that they'll be deemed too penal, too unfair ?

Has the use and emphasis on preferred angles of attack been muted or abandoned, not just by he equipment, but by the emerging culture or philosophy relating to "fairness" as perceived by the golfer and the architect ?

[Tom_Doak]

Of course, the angle DOES matter if there's a lot of slope in the green and you're afraid what will happen when the ball lands.

Tom,

Holes like # 6, 12 and 13 at Pine Valley, # 2, 9 and 11 at ANGC would be holes where the angle of attack into the green is a significant factor,
And on some of those holes you're hitting Sand or Lob wedges into the greens, but those greens are configured and oriented to present more of a challenge if you don't approach from the ideal angle.

Let's take # 12 at Pine Valley, hole cut back left.
With a lob wedge in your hands, if you're in the short left side of the fairway because you took an iron or a fairway wood off the tee, it's an incredibly frightening approach shot, requiring precision in terms of distance control and ball flight/trajectory, but a driver down the right side leaves you a straight forward approach into the green without any mandate for any aerial flight.  You can hit anything from Lob Wedge to putter.
From the left, practically, ONLY a Lob wedge can be employed.

Hence I find your minimizing the significance of angles of attack .......interesting

Is it because the modern day architect is reluctant to craft situations similar to those at # 12, fearing that they'll be deemed too penal, too unfair ?

Has the use and emphasis on preferred angles of attack been muted or abandoned, not just by he equipment, but by the emerging culture or philosophy relating to "fairness" as perceived by the golfer and the architect ?

Patrick:

I haven't abandoned the importance of preferred angles of attack.  Perhaps you need to play some more of my courses.  I was just agreeing with Doug that if the greens don't have some shape or some tilt to them, and the approach is relatively short, then the angle is not as important for the good golfer as it looks on a drawing.

I believe that the question of shape and tilt of the greens is the explanation for all of the holes you cited as important examples, except for the 11th at Augusta National, where it's all about the frightening water hazard at the left front.